Did the Flood really happen?

quote:

---

The whole surface of the land would be so defaced just from the forty days and nights of rain it would be unrecognizable and then the strata piled on top of it would further erase any recognizable remains.

---

Now you're saying almost all plant and animal life would survive that defacing? Magic water indeed! So the first layer and each subsequent layer would overly all the fossils. Is that what we see?

That's one of your claims. Your claims are not evidence for your claims.You said "many signs of having been formed after all the strata were laid down". You neglected to list any. Because there aren't any. That's one of your claims. Your claims are not evidence for your claims.Again, why not?

It's only right to respond with explanation when someone asks for further information.I did what I could to figure out your meaning. Your evasion reinforces my opinion that "unthinking knee-jerk reaction in a vain attempt to avoid having to address the issue" is why you think it's not sea floor.

quote:

---

a : a great body of salt water that covers much of the earth
broadly : the waters of the earth as distinguished from the land and air
b : a body of salt water of second rank more or less landlocked
the Mediterranean sea

---

(Merriam-Webster)

quote:

---

The sea, the world ocean or simply the ocean is the connected body of salty water that covers over 70% of Earth's surface (361,132,000 square kilometres (139,434,000 sq mi), with a total volume of roughly 1,332,000,000 cubic kilometres (320,000,000 cu mi)).

---

(Wikipedia)

quote:

---

sea
1. the continuous body of salt water covering the greater part of the earth's surface; ocean
2.a large body of salt water wholly or partly enclosed by land: the Red Sea, Irish Sea

---

(YourDictionary)

quote:

---

1. one of the larger bodies of salt water, less than an ocean, found on the earth's surface; a body of salt water of second rank, generally forming part of, or connecting with, an ocean or a larger sea; as, the Mediterranean Sea; the Sea of Marmora; the North Sea; the Carribean Sea

​

2. an inland body of water, esp. if large or if salt or brackish; as, the Caspian Sea; the Sea of Aral; sometimes, a small fresh-water lake; as, the Sea of Galilee

​

3. the ocean; the whole body of the salt water which covers a large part of the globe

---

(Webster)Looks as if Faith's definition of "sea" will be as quirky as her definition of "geologic column". If we ever tease it out of her. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

There was no ocean in the Gulf of Mexico when the strata were laid down, all of them up through the Holocene. So it was not part of the oceans. It was formed later. The evidence is on the cross sections I posted. Strata would not be laid down IN the oceans but they were laid down in the Gulf so I concluce they were laid down before the Gulf formed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm trying to explain how the strata that had to have started out horizontal, stacked vertically from Cambrian to Holocene, got turned on their side so that they are now soread along the island from left to right and the other part of their strata lie beneath the island in the same arrangement. If you have a better explanation for how that happened, lay it out.

quote:

---

The Gulf was formed after the strata were deposited. It is not sea floor.

---

Whether the strata underlying the Gulf of Mexico are marine or not is a question to be answered by geological investigation, not your decree. Until you support that claim with evidence it is just another of your empty assertion.It is also irrelevant to the question of whether it is sea floor. It is. And sediments there are being deposited on the (local) geological column. Adding to the geological column.

Jurassic through Holocene are not marine.

quote:

---

Jurassic through Holocene are not marine.

---

That is an amazingly silly thing to say. There were seas throughout those periods. There are certainly marine strata from the Jurassic, the Cretaceous is known for having extensive marine deposits, and if you have any reason to think that there were no seas in later periods, or that they didn’t contribute to the geological record I haven’t heard it.No, the only way to determine if the strata underlying the Gulf of Mexico are marine or not is to examine the geology. Not declare that they aren’t marine because they are Jurassic or Cretaceous or whatever - because that is just nonsense.

Doesn't matter to me, you know, since they were all the result of the Flood.

quote:

---

Doesn't matter to me, you know, since they were all the result of the Flood.

---

So you don’t care whether what you are saying is true or not. Because you assume that you are right anyway.I don’t actually believe that. It seems to be really important to you to pretend that the evidence supports you - even when it obviously doesn’t. I think that you spout nonsense because denying your errors and your faults is really, really important to you.

Point is that whether or not those strata are marine does not affect my theory. It's not about being accurate or not, in this case, it just makes no difference.

quote:

---

Point is that whether or not those strata are marine does not affect my theory.

---

I was the one who pointed that out in Message 1087The fact that you posted silly nonsense to support a completely irrelevant point - instead of addressing the actual issue - hardly makes you look better.I suppose you are going to claim that the fact that the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico is seabed is irrelevant, too despite the number of posts you have made disputing that.Nevertheless the Floor of the Gulf of Mexico is seabed. It has a local geological column. Sediment is being deposited there. This is clear evidence against your assertion that the Geological Column is over and done with.

A (not THE) geological column refers to the vertical sequence of rocks at a single location/point of the Earth. In concept, a true A geological column is a 1 dimensional object (AKA a vertical line). In practical reality, a A geological column would be a compilation/generalization of a collection of adjacent true A geological columns.An example of a practical reality A geological column would be the rocks of a drill coring, of which there are many examples upthread (of course that would actually be just the top part of that A geological column, as the core does not go to the center of the Earth). But even in that object of 3 dimensions, there would be some variations from 1 vertical (1 dimensional) line to the other vertical lines of the core. Going down the left side of the core would not be a precise mirroring of going down the right edge. The Earth's geology is the compilation of an infinite number of these A geological columns, those of every point of the Earth, be it continental or oceanic.When a geologist refers to THE geological column, he/she is actually referring to a A geological column of a quite specific location. Or more likely is referring to what is better termed as the geological time scale.So, getting back to the coin stack concept.On stack of coins is one column. Of course, the left edge of the stack is not precisely the same as the right edge of the stack. You are deviating from a 1 dimensional object and are starting to generalize.A second adjacent stack is a second column. If the second stack is right side by side to the first stack, then one might generalize that into being a single column. But then you are getting into even more deviations in the 2nd and 3rd dimensions.Returning to the above quoted: Wrong. A (not THE) geological column is the rocks underlying a single point on the Earth. There are an infinite number of A geological columns, that underlie every point on the Earth.Now there is a muddled mess of a message. Maybe a mooseage. I don't know if all this hair splitting is of any value to the discussion.Moose

And as a matter of fact it is possible to look at the cores and determine the original source of the materials in each layer as shown in the very images Faith included in one of her posts.